Sade vs Rand: thoughts on atheism and morality

[Hume]

Hume:

I accept that “wrong” is created by the collective (tribe, government, church, w/e) and that it is not absolute. We obey the collective because it has the might to enforce it’s will or we leave it’s physical domain.

As I understand this then, legal right and wrong exist, but moral right and wrong do not. Is that your position? This would be a rejection of the existence of morality as the term is generally used.

Codification is the legal reality, which may or may not reflect the will of the overall collective. But you’re fairly close.

In an ideal word, what is and is not moral is what we commonly agree on as such.

 

[Magnanimity]

Again, the religion itself doesn’t matter - at all.

I replied to this above. It is likely that it does matter. Something must account for some religions having billions of adherents and centuries (or millennia) of “staying power.” If you are prejudiced against religion generally, then it is predictable that you would say that this or that particular religion doesn’t matter. But that’s just borne out of your prejudice…

to invent the metaphysical

I have no idea what it might mean to invent the metaphysical. To contemplate being qua being and all its universal aspects (change, relationality, same vs other, the one and the many) is not invention. It is, rather, just what humans do–we think conceptually in the realm of Universals. And yes, all of us do this, no matter how prone we may be to reductive empiricism.

 

[Hume]

You do not gain anything by overstating your case. Since the advent of the modern modeling industry began in the late 1960’s…

which is thousands of years after the depiction of other, different female beauty standards depicted in the art of ancient Greece, for example.

It is useless to try to pretend to ourselves that there is no commonality among what men (and women) judge as beautiful in the female person.

It’s also useless to believe that it doesn’t depend on culture.

King Leonidas of Spartan fame had long hair. My dad thought long-haired men were… “effeminate” will be the word I’ll use.

As to your claim that the music of Beethoven and Mozart have not enjoyed widespread love…

No, I just claim the love isn’t universal. Plenty of folks hated each. And this is true. It can be readily and quickly evidenced.

You accused me of bandwagon, I can only respond with a horse laugh.

Let me depict;
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Hume]

I replied to this above. It is likely that it does matter. Something must account for some religions having billions of adherents and centuries (or millennia) of “staying power.” If you are prejudiced against religion generally, then it is predictable that you would say that this or that particular religion doesn’t matter. But that’s just borne out of your prejudice…

That’s just bandwagon fallacy.

Hinduism is older, so is Hinduism more true than Christianity?
There are more Muslims than Catholics, so is Islam more true than Catholicism?

I have no idea what it might mean to invent the metaphysical. To contemplate being qua being and all its universal aspects (change, relationality, same vs other, the one and the many) is not invention. It is, rather, just what humans do–we think conceptually in the realm of Universals. And yes, all of us do this, no matter how prone we may be to reductive empiricism.

Again, I’m not saying that it isn’t “real” in the way all ideas are “real”. I’m just saying we invented it. That’s all. Our greater brains required it which is why it popped up everywhere, regardless the type or number of gods it invoked.

 

[Ender]

In an ideal word, what is and is not moral is what we commonly agree on as such.

So morality is whatever gets a plurality of support? Was it moral then for Southerners to own slaves and is it moral now for Muslims to kill Jews? What you describe is not a system of morality but simply the latest consensus of opinions.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

In an ideal word, what is and is not moral is what we commonly agree on as such.

So morality is whatever gets a plurality of support? Was it moral then for Southerners to own slaves and is it moral now for Muslims to kill Jews? What you describe is not a system of morality but simply the latest consensus of opinions.

To those southerners, it was ethical. To the Muslims, it is ethical. To you it’s not.

A fine demonstration of the relativity of it, don’t you think?

 

[Ender]

To those southerners, it was ethical. To the Muslims, it is ethical. To you it’s not.

A fine demonstration of the relativity of it, don’t you think?

Yes, exactly. It does not, however, have anything to do with morality. Nor is there any reason to accept your personal definition rather than create my own. After all, if your moral system is whatever you choose to believe then surely I have the same right to create my own system. The point being that if I have no basis to judge your system then equally you have no basis to judge mine. We may each justifiably do as we please.

As I said earlier, this approach denies the existence of morality itself, and there really is no argument that each individual shouldn’t do whatever he thinks is in his own best interest.

 

[Magnanimity]

which is thousands of years after the depiction of other, different female beauty standards depicted in the art of ancient Greece, for example.

Provide an example. It’s true that male statuary was more common for ancient Greeks and Romans, but among the female statues we have access to, I do not see a wide variation from what we have found beautiful within the last 100 years in the West.

It’s also useless to believe that it doesn’t depend on culture.

I have also admitted some, limited variation, from Kim K. to A. Grande (quite different body-types). And yet, plenty of bodily and facial commonalities exist between them. As also between contemporary beauties and ancient ones.

King Leonidas of Spartan fame had long hair. My dad thought long-haired men were… “effeminate” will be the word I’ll use.

Since male humans do not embody beauty in any way similar to that of females, I have to regard comments on male beauty as irrelevant. The fashion modeling industry has been dominated by women from for the last 50 years, and there is no reason to believe that will change. Female humans uniquely exemplify beauty among humans. If you disagree, we’ll have to leave it there.

No, I just claim the love isn’t universal. Plenty of folks hated each.

You might even have an uncle who doesn’t care for the music of the Beatles. Doesn’t change the fact that their appeal enjoys widespread (universal) assent. This or that counterexample isn’t good enough. It never has been. By universal one signifies an overwhelming majority, yes?

That’s just bandwagon fallacy.

Feel free to relax on your charges of informal fallacies. They do not an argument make. Better for you to precisely explain what you take issue with.

What I’m suggesting to you is that it’s incumbent on any rational fellow to account for the staying power of the five great religions of the world. What accounts for their success, if not substantial truth, goodness and beauty exemplified by them all? I have a reasonable answer that accounts for their staying power. What’s yours?

 

[Hume]

As I said earlier, this approach denies the existence of morality itself, and there really is no argument that each individual shouldn’t do whatever he thinks is in his own best interest.

You’re right.

Where it breaks down is that we’re a social species. We have to be for survival. We don’t have fangs or claws and our skin is readily pierced. So we form groups with members having specialized functions.

Ergo, the rules are whatever the collective decides - as I said earlier.

Usually, murder was as such -

For fellow tribesmen? Bad.
For rival tribesmen? Good.
For fellow tribesmen that broke profound rules? Good.

 

[Hume]

Provide an example. It’s true that male statuary was more common for ancient Greeks and Romans, but among the female statues we have access to, I do not see a wide variation from what we have found beautiful within the last 100 years in the West.

Why just a 100 years? Arbitrary.

At times, “fleshy” women were vogue. Other times, slender and androgynous. Presently? Little waist, big butt and bust (but we’re moving away from bust and more toward butt, presently). Changes like the wind.

Since male humans do not embody beauty in any way similar to that of females, I have to regard comments on male beauty as irrelevant.

Cool, so special pleading…

We have standards of beauty. They change. Just like those for women.

You might even have an uncle who doesn’t care for the music of the Beatles. Doesn’t change the fact that their appeal enjoys widespread (universal) assent.

Then the problem here is semantic.

In classic rhetoric, “universal” is 100%. Literally no exceptions allowed. So if the entire population of humans that have ever lived think Pepsi is better than Coke - except for Pete Rose, then you can’t say that human preference for Pepsi is “universal”. Pete Rose keeps you from doing that.

Feel free to relax on your charges of informal fallacies. They do not an argument make. Better for you to precisely explain what you take issue with.

I did. You invoked size and age. Islam is bigger, Hinduism older. So by those measures they are more “true”.

What’s yours?

Chance.

 

[Freddy]

From a Christian perspective, it is wrong because God says it is wrong. End of story, completely unchangeable.

So no need to question it. You would do whatever you think God wants you to do even if you think it’s wrong. Fair enough…

 

[StudentMI]

So no need to question it. You would do whatever you think God wants you to do even if you think it’s wrong. Fair enough…

It’s weird. I remember running across Penn Jilette’s book God, No! In it he says that if God asked you to sacrifice your son, he trusts you’d be moral enough to not do it. But at the same time as a believer, it’s difficult. I need to read Kierkegaard on this.

 

[christismylord]

In it he says that if God asked you to sacrifice your son, he trusts you’d be moral enough to not do it.

This book is wrong! God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham’s son. (Genesis 22:1-2)

“After these things God decided to test Abraham’s faith. God said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Yes!” Then God said, “Take your son to the land of Moriah and kill your son there as a sacrifice for me. This must be Isaac, your only son, the one you love. Use him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains there. I will tell you which mountain.”

Genesis 22:9-10

“When they came to the place where God told them to go, Abraham built an altar. He carefully laid the wood on the altar. Then he tied up his son Isaac and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached for his knife to kill his son.”

But God did not ultimately want this, He was testing Abraham’s faith. (Genesis 22:11-12)

But the angel of the Lord stopped him. The angel called from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” Abraham answered, “Yes?” The angel said, “Don’t kill your son or hurt him in any way. Now I can see that you do respect and obey God. I see that you are ready to kill your son, your only son, for me.”

Genesis 22:15-18

You were ready to kill your only son for me. Since you did this for me, I make you this promise: I, the Lord, promise that I will surely bless you and give you as many descendants as the stars in the sky. There will be as many people as sand on the seashore. And your people will live in cities that they will take from their enemies. Every nation on the earth will be blessed through your descendants. I will do this because you obeyed me.”

 

[StudentMI]

But that’s the thing. We know from Revelation and the natural law that God wouldn’t make us do that. But what if He told us to?

 

[christismylord]

Then we should obey Him no matter what, and if His Will is something different, He will stop us before it is too late. If Abraham had said “No” then we don’t know if God would have ever made him that wonderful promise that shaped so much of the world

 

[christismylord]

Also, God will never make us do something that is “evil” because God is holy so whatever Ge says is good

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And please don’t anyone say ‘whatever God says’. We’d need the reason why He said it.

He said it because He created everything so He has total control and right to say whatever He wants about what goes on in His world. Imagine a painter, do they have total control over what they paint and what goes on in that painting? Yes, because they make it so they get to decide what is good for the painting. So God controls what is good or bad in His world. God is holy and righteous and there is no evil in Him, so what He says is correct. As for us, tainted with evil, how do we know what is good and bad? Because of our own opinion? No, because we listen to what God says about it.

But what makes it immoral? Why is it ‘supposed’ to be between one man and one woman? There may be practical reasons, but why would it not be moral?

BeCaUsE God SaId sO

So you would do whatever you thought God was asking you to do? Even if you thought it wrong?

 

[christismylord]

Yes, provided I absolutely knew God wanted me to do it. If I had some odd idea in my mind but I wasn’t sure it was from God I would pray about it and make sure! And God is holy so He would not want anyone to do something that is evil or bad. Some things may seem painful or bad but have a much brighter side we can’t see yet.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So no need to question it. You would do whatever you think God wants you to do even if you think it’s wrong. Fair enough…

It’s weird. I remember running across Penn Jilette’s book God, No! In it he says that if God asked you to sacrifice your son, he trusts you’d be moral enough to not do it. But at the same time as a believer, it’s difficult. I need to read Kierkegaard on this.

If you are referring to Fear and Trembling, you can get a free pdf of the book here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278260333_Fear_and_trembling_by_Kierkegaard_The_full_text

I’m sure that I don’t have to warn you that considering his arguments means walking a very narrow path indeed. If your sense of morality trumps God’s then…where do you go from there.

But the flip side of that position is that if someone were to act on any command that they think God (or Allah) has given them, then we get planes being flown into buildings.

 

[StudentMI]

But the flip side of that position is that if someone were to act on any command that they think God (or Allah) has given them, then we get planes being flown into buildings.

That is true. There used to be a Franciscan monk here who told me something I’ve never forgotten. He said if you felt something was right and just couldn’t understand how it was wrong, God would understand and appreciate your honesty. I think if I felt God was telling me something and I just couldn’t square it with my sense of morality, I’d have to decline. And I trust God would accept my honesty.